This
is a book written with conviction and passion. What the author, Head of
the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at St. Mary’s
University College, University of Surrey (Great Britain), tries to
expose is what he considers to be the problematic moral character of
the biblical narratives of the Conquest and Settlement in the Old
Testament. He develops three case studies to support his aims and then
closes with an appeal to reorient biblical studies.

Prior’s
work is divided into three sections. The first (chapter 1) reiterates
the biblical story line of the promise and acquisition of the Promised
Land from Genesis through Joshua and Judges. It closes, however, with
the mention of what will occupy the rest of the volume: the use of the
Bible for violent, colonial imperialism. One of his fundamental
contentions is that the problem does not ultimately lie with
misdirected interpretative methods (although this is an issue to be
dealt with). The text itself is what needs to be questioned: "It will
be seen that several traditions within the Bible lend themselves to
oppressive interpretations and applications precisely because of their
inherently oppressive nature" (p. 46).

The second section
(chapters 2-5) details the use of these narratives in various
colonizing projects. He begins with the conquests of the Spanish in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in what is now Latin America (chapter
2) and then addresses the establishment of the apartheid state in South
Africa by the Afrikaners (chapter 3). Prior’s most extensive critique
is aimed at the founding of the modern state of Israel. This historical
case is particularly poignant in light of the fact that this is the
premier example of the Jews claiming the land traditions for themselves
(with the assertion of continuity with the biblical Israel and its
unique rights and privileges). Zionism has been able to garner wide
support because of the horrors of the Holocaust of the Second World War
and because of the literalistic way the biblical materials have been
read by Christians and Jews around the globe. Nevertheless, as in Latin
America and South Africa, the imperialistic enterprise required (and in
the case of modern Israel continues to require) the forced removal,
exploitation, and even extermination of a weaker people. Israel is
built upon the suffering of the Palestinians (chapter 4). Each example
of imperialism, Prior says, though unique in time and place, displays
common elements - i.e., fabricates similar colonial myths - with the
other two. These originary myths include, for example, the notion that
the land to be taken was uninhabited or sparsely inhabited; that the
peoples already there were racially inferior; and that the occupation
is part of a divine calling to civilize and/or evangelize these
inferior people. The author spends the greater portion of this
discussion revealing what he views as the falsehoods and motivations
for the various myths that legitimate the state of Israel (chapter 5).

The
third section of the book (chapters 6-7) tries to move to a solution to
the inappropriate use of these, what he considers, violent,
ethnocentric and xenophobic texts. First, Prior appeals to a recent
stream of Old Testament scholarship that tries to identify the
socio-political and racial ideologies lying behind this biblical
material (chapter 6). These texts, it is claimed, are actually
post-Exilic and were written by those who had returned to Palestine in
order to create a history for themselves. The narratives, accordingly,
have very little relationship to what actually happened in the time
period which they purport to describe. This unmasking of the Bible’s
ideology should preclude the use of the narratives in any imperialistic
manner. To read them at face value and then appropriate them as such is
self-deluding and finally destructive to others.

The author
is aware that this way of approaching the text raises questions of the
inspiration and theological worth of the Bible (chapter 7). He refuses,
however, to skirt facing the harsh implications of the ideological
reality he believes he discerns behind the text by spiritualizing or
allegorizing the problem passages or by ignoring them in the liturgy
through a selective lectionary. Prior tries to push the reader to the
conclusion that these narratives have been superseded by the New
Testament, which no longer fixes its hope on a particular land and that
universalizes the boundaries of the people of God.

The Bible and Colonialism
deserves a careful reading. To begin with, it underscores the crucial
need for interpreters and believing communities to be aware of any kind
of agenda that might influence the reading and application of the
biblical text. This awareness is greatly enlightened by his historical
perspective. The three test cases that Prior explores are very real,
and it is impossible to deny (and it is even worse to ignore) the
tragic ways that the Bible has been utilized to sanctify imperialistic
projects. No interpretation is value-neutral. Sadly, the three cases
that the author cites could be multiplied several-fold if one were to
examine the last two thousand years.

This book raises
another important issue: the use of scholarship for a particular
socio-political stance. Because of this reviewer’s manyyears in Central
America, he was struck by Prior’s assessment of the Exodus motif in
Liberation Theology. Prior states, correctly, that liberationists have
been quick to embrace the part of the narrative that describes the
response of God to an oppressed people (the Jews in Egypt), while
ironically not noting that Exodus leads to Conquest; liberation for
some led to annihilation of others (pp. 278-84). Elsewhere I have
summarized the use of certain critical methodologies by liberationist
scholars to support their theology and praxis (see M. Daniel Carroll
R., Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin American Perspective
[JSOTSup, 132; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992], pp. 46-47,
312-19). Proir’s concern is well-taken, but one can also raise
questions about his own choice of critical approaches. The one author
most cited by Prior is T. Thompson, one of a group of ‘minimalists’ who
have been most disparaging of the biblical presentation of history
(others include scholars such as Garbini, Davies, and Whitelam). This
choice leaves him open to the charge that he has aligned himself with
only a certain kind of scholarship (howbeit prominent), which itself is
being heavily criticized for its ideological commitments and quality of
scholarship.

Having said this, one is still left with the
central issue of the nature of the Old Testament text and its value
today for theological reflection. Prior is right to see that challenges
to belief in inspiration are unavoidable. His solution is to expose and
reject these texts and then opt for the attitudes and perspectives of
Jesus and other New Testament authors; for those, however, with a
different view of the Bible, such an option is less than desirable.
Still, the hard questions must be asked: how does one evaluate and
appropriate difficult passages as Scripture? What are the ramifications
for bibliology? The same issue also has been raised, for example, by
certain feminists. This is not the place to begin to detail a careful
response, though others have begun to do so in well thought out and
nuanced manners (e.g., A.C. Thistleton, F. Watson, and K. Vanhoozer).
Prior forces his readers to wrestle with the history of the reception
of the text and to explore the very nature of the Bible itself. Though
one might not be convinced of his analysis of the text nor of his final
solution, one should at least walk away from this book with the deep
conviction that biblical interpretation is not an innocent and
interesting exercise reserved for the academic ivory tower.
Interpretation matters.

M. Daniel Carroll R.
Professor of Old Testament
Denver Seminary

Comments(1)

Comments:

Tinuke Savadogo

This is an awesome Must read book for anyone and every student of political science, religious studies and history. Great to know that others are actually writing about colonialism and christainity this is a perspective that will indeed help one see a social political and post-modern interpretation on colonialism and biblical associations in a different manner! Professor of Old Testament your critique is clear with your position and quite precise, opinionated, but yet appropriate for such a book. However some of your critique is also self-deluding in your interpretations of this book; whereby, anyone can have moments of deluding interpretations when one is challenged and have an opinion that is for or against a social political stance which comes with religious and spiritual critiquing of any holy book. Only if Prior would have used more biblical history that dealt with fuedal systems, slavery, biblical anarchies and biblical type imperialist lynched mob systems that the pharissees and replubicans utilized wholeheartedly in crucifying Jesus on the cross!